Ghana is at the center of an international controversy after West African migrants deported from the United States were later sent on to their home countries, despite U.S. court orders meant to protect some of them from refoulement.

The situation emerged as part of the Trump administration’s “third-country” deportation policy, under which the United States has transferred foreign nationals it cannot easily return directly to their countries of origin.

Instead, Washington struck agreements with nations including Ghana and Equatorial Guinea to temporarily receive those migrants.

One of the most closely watched cases involves Rabbiatu Kuyateh, a 58-year-old woman from Sierra Leone who had lived in Maryland for nearly 30 years.

Kuyateh had secured a legal order in U.S. immigration court that was intended to protect her from being sent back to Sierra Leone, where she said she and her family faced political persecution.

Despite that order, U.S. authorities deported her on Nov. 5, 2025, to Ghana, where she was held in a hotel for six days. According to interviews and legal filings reviewed by Reuters, Ghanaian authorities then forcibly returned her and dozens of other West Africans — including individuals from Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo — to their respective home countries.

Video posted on social media and verified by Kuyateh’s family shows uniformed men dragging her across a hotel floor as she cried, “I’m not going!” before being placed in a van, an image that sparked a broader conversation about the treatment of migrants under these arrangements.

Human rights advocates say the practice may violate international norms, particularly the prohibition on refoulement, which bars the return of individuals to countries where they could face torture or persecution.

Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, rejected the use of third countries like Ghana as a bypass of established protections.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that those sent to Ghana and other third countries were labeled “illegal aliens” with final removal orders, and insisted due process had been followed. DHS did not comment on the subsequent repatriations to home countries.

Ghana’s foreign ministry, interior ministry and immigration service did not respond to Reuters requests for comment on the deportees’ treatment or repatriation process. Officials in Sierra Leone and Equatorial Guinea also declined to comment.

An American family, the Wilsons, has found themselves stranded in Nigeria since early January 2026, unable to bring their legally adopted special-needs toddler home to the United States due to a new immigration restriction under Presidential Proclamation 10998.

The policy, effective January 1, 2026, suspends or limits entry and visa issuance for nationals from 39 countries—including Nigeria—eliminating previous categorical exceptions for adoption visas (IR-3, IR-4, IH-3, IH-4).

Kaylee Wilson, speaking in an emotional video and post under the handle @kreativekay_wilson, shared the family’s plight: The Wilsons legally adopted their medically fragile child nearly a year ago. Through dedicated care, love, and nutrition, the now-happy two-year-old toddler has become fully integrated into the family. After following all legal processes, they expected to complete the immigration formalities and return to the U.S. together. However, the proclamation has blocked the child’s entry.

“We legally adopted our special needs baby almost a year ago,” Kaylee narrated in the video, showing family moments and the child’s progress. “They were medically fragile when we first arrived in Nigeria, but through love and nutrition they are now a happy toddler fully integrated into our family.”

She reiterated the family’s resolve:

“Could our family return to the US without our toddler? Yes, but that would mean taking them back to the orphanage. We are not abandoning our child at the orphanage… If our baby is locked out of the United States, then so are we.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kaylee (@kreativekay_wilson)

The family also pointed out what they describe as inconsistencies in the policy: While foreign diplomats, professional athletes, coaches, and others from restricted countries can still enter the U.S., adopted children—who undergo rigorous background checks and whose adoptive parents are cleared by the FBI and Homeland Security—are barred.

“This is literally the first time in U.S. history that internationally adopted children have been prohibited from entering the US,” Kaylee stated.

The proclamation, signed by President Donald Trump on December 16, 2025, expands earlier restrictions from June 2025 (Proclamation 10949), citing national security concerns related to screening and vetting deficiencies in certain countries.

It affects Nigeria with a partial suspension on most immigrant and certain nonimmigrant visas but explicitly removes exemptions for adoption-related visas. The U.S. Department of State has confirmed that applicants may submit applications and attend interviews but are generally ineligible for issuance or admission under the new rules.

Hundreds of families are reportedly impacted, with some children remaining in orphanages indefinitely.

The Wilsons are calling on the public to engage—liking, commenting, and sharing the video—to raise awareness, and urging U.S. citizens to contact their senators and representatives to advocate for reinstating exemptions for adopted children. They have also invited affected families and news outlets to reach out via email.

This situation brings renewed attention to the human impact of U.S. immigration policies under the current Trump administration, particularly on African nations like Nigeria, where U.S. families have long pursued adoptions to provide stable homes for vulnerable children.

The Trump administration’s quiet agreement with South Africa to allow a controversial U.S. refugee program for white South Africans to continue is reigniting global debate over what critics describe as a pattern of racial preference in Washington’s immigration and foreign policy posture.

Observers say the deal appears sympathetic to white populations while showing far less urgency toward Black communities facing displacement and violence worldwide.

According to an internal meeting summary reviewed by Reuters, U.S. and South African officials reached a private understanding in late December to keep the refugee program running, despite public denials by Pretoria that white South Africans face race-based persecution.

The program, initiated under President Donald Trump, prioritizes white South Africans of Afrikaner heritage, whom the administration claims are victims of racial discrimination in majority-Black South Africa.

The South African government has consistently rejected this claim, calling it unfounded and lacking empirical evidence. Yet the Trump administration has repeatedly amplified the narrative, including during a tense May 2025 meeting in which President Trump confronted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with allegations of a so-called “white genocide.”

A programme under strain, but not abandoned

Relations between Washington and Pretoria have been strained since Trump returned to office, worsening after the United States excluded South Africa from G20 meetings it is due to host in 2026. Tensions peaked in mid-December when South African authorities raided a U.S. refugee processing site in Johannesburg.

The operation led to the arrest of seven Kenyan contractors working for a U.S.-based refugee organization over alleged visa violations, and the brief detention of two U.S. refugee officers.

While the U.S. State Department described the incident as “unacceptable,” it confirmed that refugee operations were not halted.

Despite the diplomatic friction, more Afrikaners reportedly arrived in the United States as refugees in December than in any previous month, with even higher numbers expected in January—an outcome that has further fuelled criticism of selective humanitarianism.

Pretoria pushes back on the narrative

At a December 23 meeting in Pretoria, U.S. chargé d’affaires Marc Dillard met senior South African officials, including Deputy Minister Alvin Botes and Acting Chief Director for North America Thabo Thage. According to the U.S. summary, the talks focused on de-escalating tensions and improving communication to avoid further public disputes.

South Africa’s foreign ministry stressed that the December arrests were “a law enforcement matter, not a diplomatic signal,” and reiterated that the refugee programme could only proceed if it complied with South African law.

Officials assured the U.S. that Pretoria would not block the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program but rejected any suggestion that this amounted to endorsement of its premise.

“Our position on the so-called ‘refugee protection’ for South African citizens is unchanged: it is based on a false premise that lacks empirical evidence and has been rejected by South Africans of all backgrounds,” the ministry said.

South African officials also advised the U.S. to increase American staffing and employ local South Africans rather than foreign contractors to avoid future legal complications.

Broader racial questions

For critics, the episode underscores what they see as a broader pattern under the Trump administration: a willingness to mobilise diplomatic capital and humanitarian pathways for white populations, contrasted with restrictive policies and harsher rhetoric toward Black migrants and refugees from Africa, the Caribbean and parts of Latin America.

While the administration frames the Afrikaner programme as a response to alleged persecution, human rights observers note that far larger numbers of Black refugees fleeing conflict, climate shocks and political instability continue to face tightening U.S. borders and reduced admissions.

As Washington and Pretoria quietly seek a more collaborative tone after weeks of tension, the refugee deal is likely to remain the flashpoint that raises uncomfortable questions about race, power and whose suffering is deemed worthy of protection on the global stage.